Allegations focus on the personal accountability of Pentair's Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer, following the alleged omission of significant Pool channel destocking before PNR shares fell $11.35 in a single session.

NEW YORK, Sept. 9, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP alerts investors in Pentair plc (NYSE: PNR) that a securities class action has been filed naming Chief Executive Officer John L. Stauch and former Chief Financial Officer Nicholas J. Brazis as individual defendants, on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between April 28, 2026 and July 14, 2026. Find out if you are eligible to recover losses. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

PNR closed at a Class Period high of $82.86 on April 28, 2026. Following the July 14, 2026 after-hours announcement, shares closed $64.33 on unusually heavy volume. The window to apply for lead plaintiff closes on October 2, 2026.

The Named Individual Defendants

Stauch served as Chief Executive Officer throughout the Class Period. Brazis served as Chief Financial Officer until his departure on July 10, 2026, disclosed four days later alongside the revised guidance. The complaint charges that both held the power and authority to control the content of Pentair's SEC reports, press releases, and presentations to analysts and institutional investors.

Alleged Control Person Liability

The pleading asserts that the individual defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the following:

- Control over the April 28, 2026 earnings release projecting full year 2026 sales up approximately 2 to 4 percent and adjusted EPS of $5.30 to $5.40

- Control over the Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2026, including its inventory disclosures

- Receipt of internal budgets, plans, projections, and reports reflecting channel conditions in the Pool segment

- Authority to prevent issuance of the challenged statements or cause them to be corrected

- Direct and supervisory involvement in day-to-day operations of a segment that accounted for roughly 37% of fiscal 2025 net sales and 46% of reportable income

Sarbanes-Oxley Certification Obligations

As averred, senior officers who sign Sections 302 and 906 certifications attest personally to the accuracy and completeness of the periodic reports they submit. The complaint charges that the certified filings omitted significant destocking of inventory in the Pool channel, which Pentair later estimated reduced Pool segment sales by approximately $170 million and Pool segment income by approximately $105 million in the second quarter alone.

"Corporate officers have a duty to ensure their companies' public statements are accurate and complete. Here, the complaint alleges that guidance affirmed in April was issued without disclosing destocking that the Company would later quantify at approximately $250 million in full year Pool segment sales." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your claim before the deadline or call (212) 363-7500.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP | Top 50 Securities Firm | (212) 363-7500 | www.zlk.com | Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions About the PNR Lawsuit

Q: Who are the defendants named in the PNR lawsuit? A: The complaint names Pentair plc and individual defendants including senior executives who signed SEC filings, made public statements, or certified financial disclosures under Sarbanes-Oxley, specifically Chief Executive Officer John L. Stauch and former Chief Financial Officer Nicholas J. Brazis.

Q: What court was the PNR class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Q: What specific misstatements does the PNR lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Pentair made materially false or misleading statements regarding inventory conditions in the Pool channel and full year 2026 financial guidance during the Class Period. When the Company disclosed preliminary second quarter results showing approximately $170 million of Pool segment sales impact and announced its CFO's departure, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What happens after I contact Levi & Korsinsky? A: An attorney will review your trading history at no cost and provide an initial assessment of your potential eligibility.

Q: What if I already sold my PNR shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to contact the firm. Securities class actions are generally handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, and no out-of-pocket costs. Any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to class counsel are subject to court approval.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Ed Korsinsky, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

SOURCE Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Share this article

Chronology alert: between May 7 and July 9, 2026, Rackspace allegedly reaffirmed full-year revenue targets, cut 15% of its workforce, then slashed guidance by $150 million, according to the securities action.

NEW YORK, Sept. 9, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP reminds purchasers of Rackspace Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: RXT) securities of a pending securities class action on behalf of investors who acquired shares between May 7, 2026 and July 8, 2026. Request an institutional investor loss assessment. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

RXT shares fell $2.21 per share, or 33.6%, closing at $4.37 on July 9, 2026, down from a Class Period high of $7.53. Investors have until September 28, 2026 to seek lead plaintiff status.

Chronology of Material Events

The securities action traces a compressed sequence in which, as claimed, reassurance preceded restructuring, and restructuring preceded a guidance collapse.

- May 7, 2026: Rackspace announced a memorandum of understanding with AMD to build governed enterprise AI infrastructure and, the same day, reaffirmed full-year 2026 revenue guidance of $2,600 million to $2,700 million, including Public Cloud revenue of $1,575 million to $1,625 million.

- May 8, 2026: The Company filed its Form 10-Q describing a "Business Mix Shift" from Private Cloud toward Public Cloud infrastructure resale, language the securities action alleges did not disclose the reprioritization then underway.

- June 16, 2026: A definitive AMD agreement was announced for a phased 30 MW compute footprint, alongside a Form 8-K disclosing a workforce realignment plan terminating approximately 15% of the global workforce, with one-time charges of $14 million to $19 million and expected annualized run-rate savings of $75 million to $85 million.

- June 17, 2026: Shares closed at their Class Period high of $7.53.

- July 9, 2026: Before market open, the Company published second quarter results and a strategic update reducing full-year revenue guidance by $150 million and Adjusted EBITDA guidance by $20 million, including a $25 million Private Cloud reduction tied to exiting colocation and basic hosting and a $125 million Public Cloud reduction tied to exiting low-margin resale as hyperscalers moved customers to direct contracts.

The Widening Gap Between Reassurance and Restructuring

As claimed in the securities action, the warning signs multiplied while guidance stayed intact. A workforce reduction of that scale and the deemphasis of legacy service delivery functions were announced weeks before the revenue outlook was revised, and the revised full-year range of $2,450 million to $2,550 million implies a year-over-year revenue change of (9)% to (5)%. The action alleges that investors purchasing during this window did so at prices that did not reflect the scope of the reallocation away from the Private Cloud segment, which carried a 24.7% operating margin compared with 4.7% in Public Cloud.

"Timely disclosure of material developments is fundamental to fair and efficient markets. Here, the complaint alleges that a 15% workforce realignment was announced in June while full-year revenue targets remained unchanged until the $150 million reduction disclosed on July 9." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Contact us for institutional recovery options or call (212) 363-7500.

INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR REPRESENTATION — Levi & Korsinsky, LLP provides sophisticated counsel to institutional investors evaluating lead plaintiff opportunities. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars. Ranked among ISS Top 50 for seven consecutive years.

Frequently Asked Questions About the RXT Lawsuit

Q: How much did RXT stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 33.6%, a decline of $2.21 per share, after the Company disclosed a $150 million reduction to full-year 2026 revenue guidance tied to reprioritizing capacity and capital toward enterprise AI. Investors who purchased shares during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices and suffered losses may be eligible to seek compensation.

Q: When did Rackspace Technology, Inc. allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from May 7, 2026 to July 8, 2026. The complaint alleges that corrective disclosures revealed information that caused a significant stock decline.

Q: What court was the RXT class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Q: What do RXT investors need to do right now? A: Gather brokerage records including purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact Levi & Korsinsky for a free, no-obligation evaluation at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as an absent class member.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What if I already sold my RXT shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to contact the firm. Securities class actions are generally handled on a pure contingency basis. No upfront fees, no retainer, and no out-of-pocket costs. Any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to class counsel are subject to court approval.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Ed Korsinsky, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

SOURCE Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Share this article

A securities class action alleges Capricor Therapeutics told investors its Phase 3 HOPE-3 results were statistically significant while allegedly omitting that the final statistical analysis plan was rewritten one day before unblinding and was never agreed to by the FDA. This release traces the disclosure events date by date.

NEW YORK, Sept. 9, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Capricor Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAPR) that a class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between December 17, 2025 and July 26, 2026. See if you could be eligible to recover. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

CAPR closed at $19.70 on July 24, 2026. Three trading sessions later, the stock declined approximately 78.7% including aggregate corrective-disclosure losses of $15.08 per share. Investors have until September 28, 2026 to seek lead plaintiff status.

Chronology of Alleged Disclosure Failures

The securities action traces a sequence in which optimistic regulatory messaging preceded the release of FDA briefing materials that described the HOPE-3 statistical record very differently.

- November 24, 2025: The final version of the statistical analysis plan (SAP v. 3.0) is dated, which FDA briefing documents later stated was one day before the trial data was unblinded and was not submitted to the agency for review before BLA submission.

- December 17, 2025: The Class Period opens as the Company discusses HOPE-3 topline results publicly, describing endpoints as statistically significant and "type 1 error controlled."

- January 20, 2026: A regulatory update states HOPE-3 demonstrated statistically significant improvements in both skeletal muscle and cardiac function.

- March 10, 2026: The Company announces the FDA lifted the Complete Response Letter and assigned a PDUFA target action date of August 22, 2026.

- July 27, 2026: FDA briefing documents state the study "did not meet its pre-specified primary and secondary efficacy endpoints," characterize post-study analyses as "post-hoc and exploratory," and describe the benefit-risk assessment as unfavorable. Shares fall $12.70, or 64%, to $7.00 on unusually heavy volume.

- July 30, 2026: Reporting on the advisory committee's 9-3 vote indicates the panel concluded available evidence does not support deramiocel's efficacy. Shares fell $2.38, or approximately 36%, to close at $4.19.

Why the Sequence Matters to Shareholders

The securities action alleges investors were never told that the analytical framework supporting the efficacy claims had been modified after study completion without agency agreement, or that a distinctive hypersensitivity reaction profile (42% of treated patients versus 15% on placebo) raised the possibility of functional unblinding.

"Timely disclosure of material developments is fundamental to fair and efficient markets. The complaint raises the question of when the unagreed statistical analysis plan changes described in the FDA's briefing documents were known internally, as compared with when shareholders learned of them." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Calculate your potential recovery or call (212) 363-7500.

ABOUT THE FIRM — For over two decades, Levi & Korsinsky has represented shareholders in securities class actions. Ranked in ISS Top 50 for seven consecutive years. Investors who suffered losses have until September 28, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

Frequently Asked Questions About the CAPR Lawsuit

Q: How much did CAPR stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 78.7%, a decline of an aggregate $15.08 per share across two corrective disclosures, after FDA briefing documents disclosed unagreed changes to the pre-specified statistical analysis plan and an advisory committee voted 9-3 against supporting efficacy. Investors who purchased during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices and suffered losses may be eligible to seek compensation.

Q: What specific misstatements does the CAPR lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Capricor made materially false or misleading statements regarding the statistical significance of HOPE-3 results and the strength of its BLA, while omitting that the pre-specified statistical analysis plan had been changed without FDA agreement. When the FDA briefing documents were released, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: When did Capricor Therapeutics allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from December 17, 2025 to July 26, 2026. The complaint alleges that corrective disclosures revealed information that caused a significant stock decline.

Q: What court was the CAPR class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What do CAPR investors need to do right now? A: Gather brokerage records including purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Contact Levi & Korsinsky for a free, no-obligation evaluation at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as an absent class member.

Q: What if I already sold my CAPR shares, can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to contact the firm. Securities class actions are generally handled on a pure contingency basis, with no retainer and no out-of-pocket costs. Any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to class counsel are subject to court approval.

Q: How long will the lawsuit take to resolve? A: Securities class actions typically take two to four years from initial filing to resolution. Timing depends on the court schedule, case developments, and whether the matter is dismissed, settled, or litigated further.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Ed Korsinsky, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

SOURCE Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Share this article

A single trading session erased more than a third of UWM Holdings' market value after the Company reported a $603.2 million interest rate derivatives loss, with the securities class action alleging investors were never told the Company had taken an over-hedged MSR position tied to the failed Two Harbors deal.

NEW YORK, Sept. 9, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP alerts investors in UWM Holdings Corporation (NYSE: UWMC) of a pending securities class action filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between March 9, 2026 and August 5, 2026. Find out if you may qualify to recover losses. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

UWMC shares fell $0.64, or 34.78%, to close at $1.20 on August 6, 2026, on unusually heavy trading volume. Shares had traded as high as $4.04 on March 10, 2026, a Class Period peak. Investors have until October 13, 2026 to seek lead plaintiff status.

The Market Reaction to the August Disclosure

After the market closed on August 5, 2026, UWM reported second quarter results that included a $603.2 million interest rate derivatives loss, a $451.9 million quarterly net loss, and a 43.6% year-over-year decline in total equity. The following morning, during the Company's earnings call, management described the position as "over-hedged" in connection with the terminated Two Harbors Investment Corp. transaction, a deal originally valued at $1.3 billion. Trading volume spiked as the stock repriced.

How the Repricing Compares to Class Period Highs

- Class Period high: $4.04 per share on March 10, 2026

- Closing price after the disclosure: $1.20 per share on August 6, 2026

- Single-session decline: $0.64 per share, or 34.78%

- Reported interest rate derivatives loss: $603.2 million

- Reported second quarter net loss: $451.9 million

- Reported year-over-year decline in total equity: 43.6%

The complaint asserts that these figures reflect the removal of artificial inflation from the share price once information about the hedging position reached the market.

What the Complaint Says Was Missing From Prior Statements

The action charges that, during the Class Period, the Company did not disclose that it had departed from its longstanding practice of not hedging mortgage servicing rights, that the position taken ahead of the Two Harbors transaction was excessive, and that purported risk mitigation had instead created an excess hedging exposure. The pleading asserts that positive statements about the Company's business and prospects were therefore materially misleading or lacked a reasonable basis.

"When companies fail to disclose material information, shareholders may suffer significant losses. The complaint here alleges that UWMC investors were not told the Company had taken a hedging position outside its stated business model before a $603.2 million derivatives loss was reported." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information here or call (212) 363-7500.

ABOUT THE FIRM — For over two decades, Levi & Korsinsky has represented shareholders in securities class actions. Ranked in ISS Top 50 for seven consecutive years. Investors who suffered losses have until October 13, 2026 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

Frequently Asked Questions About the UWMC Lawsuit

Q: How much did UWMC stock drop? A: Shares fell approximately 34.78%, a decline of $0.64 per share, to close at $1.20 on August 6, 2026. Investors who purchased shares during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices and suffered losses may be eligible to seek compensation.

Q: When did UWM Holdings Corporation allegedly mislead investors? A: The Class Period runs from March 9, 2026 to August 5, 2026. The complaint alleges that corrective disclosures revealed information that caused a significant stock decline.

Q: What court was the UWMC class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Q: What do UWMC investors need to do right now? A: Investors may gather brokerage records showing purchase dates, share quantities, and prices paid. Submit your information for a no-cost, no-obligation evaluation of your potential recovery. No immediate action is required to remain eligible as an absent class member.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What if I already sold my UWMC shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to submit your information and review whether you may be eligible to recover. Should you choose to participate in the securities class action, they are generally handled on a contingency basis, with any attorneys' fees and expenses subject to court approval.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Ed Korsinsky, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

SOURCE Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Share this article

Important Information Regarding Section 20(a) Individual Liability Claims: Taboola.com Ltd.'s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer are named personally in a securities class action alleging they controlled and certified statements about "accelerated growth" while an alleged buildup of low-quality publishers went undisclosed.

NEW YORK, Sept. 9, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP alerts investors in Taboola.com Ltd. (NASDAQ: TBLA) of a pending securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities between May 6, 2026 and August 4, 2026. Find out if you may be eligible to recover losses. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

TBLA shares fell $1.45 per share, or 27.41%, closing at $3.84 on August 5, 2026, after Taboola reported second quarter revenue of $476.8 million against guidance of $492-$505 million and cut full year 2026 revenue guidance by $91 million at the midpoint. The window to apply for lead plaintiff closes on October 20, 2026.

The Named Individual Defendants

Beyond the Company itself, the securities action names Chief Executive Officer Adam Singolda and Chief Financial Officer Stephen Walker, each identified as serving in those roles at all relevant times. The complaint charges that both officers possessed the power and authority to control the contents of the Company's SEC reports, press releases, and presentations to analysts and institutional investors, and that each had the ability to prevent or correct the statements alleged to be misleading before they reached the market.

Section 20(a) Control Person Framework

In practical terms, control person claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act mean that senior officers can be held personally answerable alongside the company for statements they controlled. The pleading also asserts that as signatories of the Company's quarterly report for the period ended March 31, 2026, the officers carried certification obligations under Sarbanes-Oxley Sections 302 and 906 covering the accuracy of reported financial information, including the definite-lived intangible asset line identifying publisher relationships.

Sarbanes-Oxley Certification Obligations

- Both officers are alleged to have had access to internal reports, budgets, and projections reflecting the condition of the publisher network.

- Full year 2026 revenue guidance was later reset to $1,930-$1,956 million, and gross profit guidance to $605-$615 million, a reduction of $10 million at the midpoint.

- The complaint contends the value assigned to publisher relationships as a definite-lived intangible asset was overstated.

- The action alleges the officers knew or recklessly disregarded that an increase in low-quality publishers would require an aggressive exit strategy affecting earnings.

- Shares reached a Class Period high of $5.58 on July 9, 2026, less than four weeks before the disclosure.

- No safe harbor protection is claimed to apply, because the challenged statements are alleged to concern then-existing facts and conditions.

"Corporate officers have a duty to ensure their companies' public statements are accurate and complete. The complaint here alleges that senior executives controlled disclosures describing accelerated growth while conditions in the publisher network were allegedly developing in the opposite direction." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information to learn more or call (212) 363-7500.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights firm. Over the past 20 years, the firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Ranked in ISS Top 50 for seven consecutive years.

Frequently Asked Questions About the TBLA Lawsuit

Q: Who are the defendants named in the TBLA lawsuit? A: The complaint names Taboola.com Ltd. and individual defendants including senior executives who signed SEC filings, made public statements, or certified financial disclosures under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Q: What specific misstatements does the TBLA lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges Taboola.com Ltd. made materially false or misleading statements regarding an undisclosed increase in low-quality publishers, the resulting need to aggressively exit those relationships, and the overstated value of its publisher relationships during the Class Period. When the Q2 2026 revenue miss and reduced full year guidance were disclosed, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: What court was the TBLA class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What happens after I contact Levi & Korsinsky? A: An attorney will review your trading history at no cost and provide an initial assessment of your potential eligibility.

Q: What if I already sold my TBLA shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to submit your information and review whether you may be eligible to recover. Should you choose to participate in the securities class action, they are generally handled on a contingency basis, with any attorneys' fees and expenses subject to court approval.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Ed Korsinsky, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

SOURCE Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Share this article

Bybit AI ist jetzt verfügbar: Eine intelligente Dialogschicht, die das Finanzerlebnis neu definiert

Bybit macht den Zugang zu KI auf Unternehmensniveau in den Bereichen Handel, Kontoverwaltung und Kundenservice für alle zugänglich

DUBAI, VAE, 9. September 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Bybit, die gemessen am Handelsvolumen zweitgrößte Kryptowährungsbörse der Welt, gab die offizielle Einführung von Bybit AI bekannt, einem Dialogassistenten, der die Kerndienste der Börse – angefangen bei Handel und Kundensupport – in einer einzigen Chat-Oberfläche innerhalb der Bybit-App vereint.

Mit Bybit AI können Nutzer ihre Wünsche in einfacher Sprache beschreiben. Der Assistent interpretiert die Absicht des Nutzers und führt die gewünschte Aktion in dessen Namen aus – er fungiert dabei als intelligenter Co-Pilot für den täglichen Handel und die Kontoverwaltung.

Chatten, um zu handeln: Ein neues Finanzerlebnis

„Bybit AI ist ein wichtiger Bestandteil unserer Roadmap für die ‚New Financial Platform'", sagte Ben Zhou, Co-founder und CEO von Bybit. „Wir möchten es den Nutzern erleichtern, an einem Ort auf die Finanzdienstleistungen zuzugreifen, die sie benötigen. Im Zuge der weiteren Entwicklung von Bybit AI werden Nutzer damit in der Lage sein, eine breitere Palette an Produkten und Dienstleistungen auf Bybit zu finden und darauf zuzugreifen. Die Idee ist einfach: Sie sagen Bybit AI, was Sie tun möchten, und es hilft Ihnen dabei, die richtigen Produkte und Dienstleistungen zu finden, um dies zu erreichen – so, als hätten Sie ein Team von Finanzexperten direkt in Ihrer Tasche."

Bybit AI ersetzt das fragmentierte Erlebnis beim Navigieren durch Webseiten, Menüs und Dashboards durch einen einzigen, durchgängigen Dialog. Anstatt für jede Aufgabe nach dem richtigen Tool suchen zu müssen – sei es die Überprüfung des Portfoliosaldos, die Platzierung eines Handelsauftrags oder das Einreichen eines Support-Tickets –, formulieren Nutzer ihre Anfrage einfach in natürlicher Sprache, und Bybit AI führt die entsprechende Aktion direkt im Chat aus. Bybit hat die Produktarchitektur nach einem klaren Prinzip aufgebaut: Die Infrastruktur soll die zugrunde liegenden Verbindungen bereitstellen, während einzelne Geschäftsbereiche in eine einzige Schnittstelle eingebunden werden, sodass sich die zahlreichen Dienste der Börse den Nutzern als ein durchgängiger Assistent präsentieren und nicht als eine Sammlung unzusammenhängender Produkte.

Bybit stellte außerdem eine Roadmap vor, um seine Dienste über eine offene API zusammenzuführen und so Handel, Ertragsmöglichkeiten, Kredite, Kartendienste und Kundensupport zu einem einheitlicheren Erlebnis zu verbinden. „Wir wollen nicht einfach ein weiteres Dashboard hinzufügen oder einen weiteren Chatbot anfügen", sagte Rockman Zhang, CTO bei Bybit. „Das Ziel ist es, es den Nutzern zu erleichtern, das zu finden, was sie brauchen, und an einem Ort Maßnahmen zu ergreifen – mit einer einfachen Benutzeroberfläche, die die richtigen Produkte und Dienste zusammenführt."

In der ersten Einführungsphase wird Bybit AI für alle Nutzer in zwei Hauptmodulen bereitgestellt:

- Ein KI-Assistent für alle Bedürfnisse: Bybit AI wird wichtige und wesentliche Funktionen aus den Bereichen Spot-, Futures- und Optionshandel, Bybit Earn, Copy Trading, Trading Bot, Kredite, P2P, Bybit Card, Spot X, den Zugriff auf den Rewards Hub sowie die Verwaltung von Benachrichtigungen und Abonnements abdecken.

- Intelligenter Support-: Der Kundenservice von Bybit wird verbessert, wobei die menschliche Note erhalten bleibt: Bybit AI arbeitet mit professionellen menschlichen Mitarbeitern zusammen, um die Benutzererfahrung zu optimieren. Ein intelligenterer Kundensupport wird direkt in Bybit AI integriert, wodurch sichergestellt wird, dass Kundenanfragen schneller, besser und effektiver gelöst werden.

Um Bybit AI zu nutzen, sollten berechtigte Nutzer die Funktion zunächst aktivieren, wodurch ein eigenes Bybit-AI-Unterkonto erstellt wird. Bybit hat sein Flaggschiff-KI-System auf einer „Security-First"-Architektur aufgebaut. Das Unterkonto ist vom Hauptguthaben des Nutzers isoliert, um potenzielle KI-Risiken zu vermeiden, und ermöglicht eine sofortige Einbindung, ohne dass ein API-Schlüssel oder eine manuelle Einrichtung erforderlich ist.

Livestream: Bybit-AI-Demo

Ben Zhou, Co-founder und CEO von Bybit, wird Bybit AI am 9. September 2026 um 08:00 Uhr UTC live auf Bybit offiziell vorstellen und den bahnbrechenden „Co-Pilot" demonstrieren. Um sich für den Livestream anzumelden und Bybit AI in Aktion zu sehen, können Zuschauer folgende Seite besuchen: So funktioniert es: Bybit AI Livestream.

Bybit AI spiegelt das Bestreben von Bybit wider, sich als „New Financial Platform" für das KI-Zeitalter zu positionieren, wobei künstliche Intelligenz nicht als zusätzliches Feature, sondern als verbindende Ebene zwischen Handel, Vermögensverwaltung und alltäglichen Kontoaktivitäten eingesetzt wird. Die Einführung markiert einen ersten Schritt auf einem längeren Weg hin zu KI-nativen Finanzdienstleistungen, wobei Bybit die „Conversational Intelligence" als zentrale Infrastruktur positioniert.

#Bybit / #NewFinancialPlatform

Informationen zu Bybit

Bybit ist die neue Finanzplattform.

Wir sind der Überzeugung, dass jeder Mensch Zugang zu allen finanziellen Möglichkeiten auf der Welt haben sollte. Deshalb entwickeln wir die erste intelligente Plattform, die jeden – egal wo – mit der globalen Finanzwelt verbindet.

Bybit genießt das Vertrauen von mehr als 80 Millionen Nutzern weltweit und vereint Investitionen, Handel, Zahlungsverkehr und Vermögensaufbau in einem einzigen sicheren und intelligenten Ökosystem. Durch die Kombination aus KI-gestützter Technologie, hoher globaler Liquidität, solider Sicherheit und transparenten Abläufen macht Bybit die globale Finanzwelt für alle zugänglicher, effizienter und konstruktiver.

Für alle gemacht. Unterstützt durch Intelligenz. Offen für die Welt.

Erfahren Sie mehr unter Bybit.com

Weitere Informationen zu Bybit finden Sie unter Bybit Press

Bei Medienanfragen wenden Sie sich bitte an: [email protected]

Für Updates folgen Sie bitte: Bybits Communitys und sozialen Medien

Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | Reddit | Telegram | TikTok | X | YouTube

Share this article

A securities class action alleges Simply Good Foods' former CEO Geoff E. Tanner and CFOs Shaun P. Mara and Christopher J. Bealer certified filings that painted the $280 million OWYN integration as on track, while SMPL shareholders absorbed a decline of more than 70% and a $200 million write-down.

NEW YORK, Sept. 9, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP alerts investors in The Simply Good Foods Company (NASDAQ: SMPL) of a pending securities class action covering purchasers between October 24, 2024 and April 8, 2026. Find out if you may be eligible to recover losses. You may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. at [email protected] or (212) 363-7500.

SMPL shares fell from $14.41 per share on April 8, 2026, to $10.44 per share on April 10, 2026, a decline exceeding 27%, or more than $10.40 per share. The Company recorded a $187 million impairment against OWYN intangible assets, bringing cumulative write-downs to $200 million on a $280 million acquisition. The window to apply for lead plaintiff closes on October 13, 2026.

The Named Individual Defendants

The action names Geoff E. Tanner, President and Chief Executive Officer from July 2023 until January 2026; Shaun P. Mara, Chief Financial Officer from October 2022 until July 2025; and Christopher J. Bealer, Chief Financial Officer since July 2025 and previously SVP Finance. Each is alleged to have signed or certified periodic reports describing the OWYN acquisition as central to the Company's strategic vision.

Sarbanes-Oxley Certification Obligations

Under Sections 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the certifying officers attested that the Company's quarterly and annual reports did not omit material facts. The complaint charges that those filings failed to disclose already-existing integration breakdowns, departures of key OWYN personnel, and product quality problems tied to a pea protein sourcing change.

Alleged Control Person Liability Under Section 20(a)

- Authority over the content of Form 10-K and Form 10-Q filings during the Class Period

- Certifications under Sarbanes-Oxley Sections 302 and 906 attesting to disclosure accuracy

- Direct participation in quarterly earnings calls addressing OWYN integration status

- Alleged access to internal reporting on OWYN margins, discounting, and G&A growth

- Alleged responsibility for risk factor language stating the Company "may not accomplish the integration of an acquired business smoothly"

- Alleged failure to correct prior statements as adverse conditions worsened

"Corporate officers have a duty to ensure their companies' public statements are accurate and complete. The complaint here alleges that certifications continued to attest to complete disclosure even as OWYN integration problems were allegedly known internally." -- Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Submit your information to learn more or call (212) 363-7500.

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights firm. Over the past 20 years, the firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Ranked in ISS Top 50 for seven consecutive years.

Frequently Asked Questions About the SMPL Lawsuit

Q: Who are the defendants named in the SMPL lawsuit? A: The complaint names The Simply Good Foods Company and individual defendants including senior executives who signed SEC filings, made public statements, or certified financial disclosures under Sarbanes-Oxley.

Q: What specific misstatements does the SMPL lawsuit allege? A: The complaint alleges The Simply Good Foods Company made materially false or misleading statements regarding the integration and performance of the OWYN acquisition during the Class Period. When the OWYN sales contraction, $187 million impairment, and slashed fiscal 2026 outlook were disclosed, the stock price declined sharply.

Q: What court was the SMPL class action filed in? A: The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Q: What is a lead plaintiff and why does it matter? A: A lead plaintiff is the investor appointed by the court to represent the entire class. Lead plaintiffs are typically investors with the largest documented losses. Being appointed does not increase individual recovery but gives direct oversight of how the case is run.

Q: What documents do I need to to submit my information? A: Brokerage statements or trade confirmations showing purchase dates, share quantities, prices paid, and any subsequent sale dates and prices.

Q: Do I need to go to court or give testimony? A: No. The overwhelming majority of class members never appear in court or give depositions. If there is a settlement or recovery, eligible class members generally submit a claim form to seek their portion.

Q: What does it cost me to participate? A: There is no upfront cost to submit your information and review whether you may be eligible to recover. Should you choose to participate in the securities class action, they are generally handled on a contingency basis, with any attorneys' fees and expenses subject to court approval.

Q: What if I already sold my SMPL shares -- can I still recover losses? A: Yes. Eligibility is based on when you purchased, not whether you still hold the shares. Investors who bought during the Class Period and sold at a loss may still be eligible to participate.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

Ed Korsinsky, Esq.

33 Whitehall Street, 27th Floor

New York, NY 10004

[email protected]

Tel: (212) 363-7500

Fax: (212) 363-7171

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

SOURCE Levi & Korsinsky, LLP

Share this article

EU-Vergabereform stärkt resiliente Arzneimittelversorgung

Berlin (ots)

Krankenkassen müssen Versorgungssicherheit in Rabattverträgen stärker honorieren.

Die Europäische Kommission will das Vergaberecht grundlegend neu ausrichten: Öffentliche Beschaffung soll künftig stärker als strategisches Instrument für Versorgungssicherheit, Resilienz und europäische Wettbewerbsfähigkeit genutzt werden. Aus Sicht von Pharma Deutschland ist das ein wichtiges Signal und zugleich ein klarer Auftrag an Deutschland, die Beschaffung von Arzneimitteln entsprechend weiterzuentwickeln. Insbesondere bei Rabattverträgen der gesetzlichen Krankenkassen darf der niedrigste Preis nicht länger faktisch das entscheidende Kriterium sein.

"Europa erkennt, dass Versorgungssicherheit einen Wert hat. Genau diesen Gedanken müssen wir jetzt auch in Deutschland konsequent umsetzen. Wer eine resilientere Arzneimittelversorgung in Europa und insbesondere in Deutschland will, muss dafür auch die entsprechenden wirtschaftlichen Anreize setzen. Resilienz darf nicht nur politisch gefordert werden. Eine gegenüber Krisen resiliente Arzneimittelversorgung ist ein gesamtgesellschaftlich wichtiger strategischer Faktor. Deshalb muss auch die notwendige Beschaffung der Arzneimittel entsprechend honoriert werden", erklärt Dorothee Brakmann von Pharma Deutschland.

Der Kommissionsentwurf sieht vor, öffentliche Aufträge grundsätzlich nach dem besten Verhältnis von Qualität und Preis auszuwählen, um einen übermäßigen Fokus auf den Preis zu verhindern. Versorgungssicherheit und Resilienz können dabei ausdrücklich berücksichtigt werden. Auch die Aufteilung von Aufträgen in Lose soll genutzt werden können, um Abhängigkeiten von einzelnen Lieferanten zu verringern und Lieferketten zu diversifizieren. Für strategisch sensible Beschaffungen eröffnet der Entwurf zudem Möglichkeiten, europäische oder handelspolitisch gleichgestellte Anbieter und Produkte zu bevorzugen. Dabei sollte jedoch nicht außer Acht gelassen werden, dass eine Europäische Präferenz allein das zugrunde liegende Problem nicht lösen kann. Entscheidend ist vielmehr eine stärkere Diversifizierung der Lieferwege und Bezugsquellen, um Abhängigkeiten zu reduzieren und die Resilienz der Lieferketten insgesamt zu erhöhen.

Europäische Reform muss auch Impuls für Deutschland sein

Für Deutschland stellt sich damit die Frage, wie Resilienz künftig konkret in Beschaffungsentscheidungen einfließen kann. Gerade bei Rabattverträgen der gesetzlichen Krankenkassen darf der niedrigste Preis nicht das alleinige Kriterium sein.

Pharma Deutschland fordert deshalb, die europäische Vergabereform zum Anlass zu nehmen, auch die bestehenden Beschaffungsmechanismen in Deutschland weiterzuentwickeln. Wer Versorgungssicherheit und einen resilienten Pharmastandort stärken will, muss diese Ziele auch in den Vergabeverfahren abbilden.

"Deutschland kann nicht auf der einen Seite eine Stärkung des Pharmastandorts und resilientere Lieferketten fordern und auf der anderen Seite Beschaffungssysteme aufrechterhalten, bei denen vor allem der niedrigste Preis zählt. Standortpolitik, Versorgungspolitik und Beschaffungspolitik müssen zusammengedacht werden", so Brakmann weiter.

Die europäische Vergabereform bietet aus Sicht von Pharma Deutschland die Chance, den Wettbewerb bei der Arzneimittelbeschaffung neu auszurichten: weg von einer ausschließlichen Orientierung am Preis und hin zu einem Wettbewerb, der auch Qualität, Versorgungssicherheit und Resilienz berücksichtigt. Davon kann langfristig auch die Arzneimittelversorgung in Deutschland profitieren. Pharma Deutschland begrüßt die Bereitschaft, im Dialog eine überfällige Harmonisierung anzugehen.

_______________

Der Pharma Deutschland e.V. ist der mitgliederstärkste Branchenverband der Pharmaindustrie in Deutschland. Er vertritt die Interessen von rund 400 Mitgliedsunternehmen, die in Deutschland ca. 80.000 Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter beschäftigen. Die in Pharma Deutschland e.V. organisierten Unternehmen tragen maßgeblich dazu bei, die Arzneimittelversorgung in Deutschland zu sichern. So stellen sie fast 80 Prozent der in Apotheken verkauften rezeptfreien und fast zwei Drittel der rezeptpflichtigen Arzneimittel sowie einen Großteil der stofflichen und dentalen Medizinprodukte für die Patientinnen und Patienten bereit. Unter www.pharmadeutschland.de gibt es mehr Informationen zu Pharma Deutschland.

Ihre Ansprechpartner in der Pressestelle von Pharma Deutschland:

Hannes Hönemann

Leiter Abteilung Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit

T. +49 171 5618203

hoenemann@pharmadeutschland.de

Anna Frederike Gutzeit

CvD Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit

T. +49 170 4548014

gutzeit@pharmadeutschland.de

Geschäftsstelle Berlin

Pharma Deutschland e.V.

Friedrichstraße 134

10117 Berlin

Geschäftsstelle Bonn

Pharma Deutschland e.V.

Ubierstraße 71-73

53173 Bonn

Geschäftsstelle Brüssel

Pharma Deutschland e.V.

Rue Marie de Bourgogne 58

1000 Brüssel

www.pharmadeutschland.de

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pharmadeutschland/

Original-Content von: Pharma Deutschland e.V., übermittelt durch news aktuell

BPI Bundesverband der Pharmazeutischen Industrie

EU-PPA: Versorgungssicherheit verbindlich machen - Die Zeit drängt!

Berlin (ots)

Die Europäische Kommission hat heute mit dem EU-Public Procurement Act (PPA) einen umfassenden Vorschlag zur Weiterentwicklung und Modernisierung des europäischen Vergaberechts vorgelegt. Dazu das Statement von BPI-Hauptgeschäftsführer Dr. Kai Joachimsen:

"Die EU-Kommission muss Versorgungssicherheit zur verbindlichen Leitlinie der Arzneimittelbeschaffung machen. Das Ziel lautet: Versorgungssouveränität - durch starke Produktionskapazitäten in Europa und diversifizierte, belastbare Lieferketten. Die Zeit drängt!

Entscheidend ist, dass nicht allein der niedrigste Preis zählt. Verlässliche Lieferfähigkeit, nachhaltige Produktion und Investitionen in Europa müssen sich bei der Vergabe auszahlen. Für versorgungskritische Arzneimittel brauchen wir grundsätzlich mehrere Lieferanten, soweit die Marktlage dies ermöglicht. Zusätzliche Lagerbestände und Produktionsreserven müssen angemessen vergütet werden.

Die Vorgaben müssen zugleich praktikabel bleiben - gerade für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen. Arbeitsteilige Produktionsmodelle dürfen nicht durch pauschale Eigenleistungsvorgaben behindert werden.

Zum entschlossenen Handeln gehört auch, dass die Kommission PPA und Critical Medicines Act (CMA) eng aufeinander abstimmt, damit sie sich gegenseitig verstärken. Wir brauchen einen kohärenten europäischen Vergaberahmen mit einheitlichen, eindeutigen und einfachen Vorgaben, um Versorgungssicherheit zu gewährleisten. Was wir nicht brauchen, sind doppelte Nachweise, widersprüchliche Anforderungen oder sonstige Rechtsunsicherheiten."

Pressekontakt:

Hermann Hofmann, Tel. +49 0176 12790936, presse@bpi.de

Original-Content von: BPI Bundesverband der Pharmazeutischen Industrie, übermittelt durch news aktuell

Teurer als gedacht!

Rover-Umfrage zeigt: Fast jede:r zweite Hundehalter:in unterschätzt die Kosten

Berlin (ots)

Eine aktuelle Rover-Umfrage zeigt: 45 Prozent der Hundehalter:innen in Deutschland geben an, dass die tatsächlichen Kosten ihres Hundes höher ausgefallen sind als ursprünglich erwartet. Besonders der Start ins Hundeleben schlägt oft stärker zu Buche als gedacht: Bei über der Hälfte der Befragten (52 Prozent) lagen die gesamten Anschaffungs- und Startkosten bei 500 Euro oder mehr. Trotz steigender Kosten bleibt die Verbundenheit zum Hund groß: 35 Prozent würden bei den Ausgaben für ihren Hund grundsätzlich nicht sparen, viele würden stattdessen eher bei den eigenen Luxusausgaben kürzen.

Ein Welpe zieht ein und die Vorfreude ist groß. Doch was kostet ein Hund eigentlich konkret, Monat für Monat und vom ersten Tag an? Wie weit sind Halter:innen bereit zu gehen, damit es ihrem Hund an nichts fehlt? Das zeigt eine aktuelle Umfrage von Rover, dem weltweit größten Online-Marktplatz für individuelle Tierbetreuung. Die Umfrage wurde im August vom Marktforschungsunternehmen Pollfish unter 1.000 Hundehalter:innen in Deutschland durchgeführt. Das Ergebnis zeichnet ein detailliertes Bild: von den Startkosten über den monatlichen Grundbedarf bis zu spürbaren Unterschieden zwischen den Hunderassen.

Der Hund zuerst: Halter:innen sparen lieber bei sich selbst

Die Umfrage zeigt, wie fest der Hund als Familienmitglied verankert ist, auch wenn das Budget knapper wird. Bemerkenswert: Fast jede:r dritte Hundehalter:in gibt an, grundsätzlich nirgendwo bei den Ausgaben für ihren Hund zu sparen, unabhängig vom finanziellen Druck. Wo gespart werden muss, greifen viele lieber bei sich selbst zuerst: 83 Prozent reduzieren bereits eigene "Luxusausgaben" wie Restaurantbesuche oder Urlaub zugunsten ihres Hundes oder wären dazu bereit.

Auch bei den Prioritäten zeigt sich diese Haltung deutlich: 84 Prozent würden beim Futter nicht sparen, 76 Prozent nicht bei Tierarztkosten. Wird gespart, dann eher an anderer Stelle: bei Zubehör und Spielzeug (38 Prozent), bei Betreuung (22 Prozent) oder bei Training beziehungsweise Hundeschule (22 Prozent). Diese Bereiche stehen für viele Halter:innen zur Disposition, bevor es an das geht, was für die Gesundheit und das Wohlbefinden ihres Hundes zentral ist.

Der teure Start: Diese Kosten fallen zu Beginn an

Dennoch zeigt die Umfrage: Der Einstieg in die Hundehaltung kann mit spürbaren finanziellen Überraschungen verbunden sein, und die beginnen oft früh. Rund jede:r Zweite (52 Prozent) gibt an, insgesamt 500 Euro oder mehr für die Anschaffung investiert zu haben, knapp 15 Prozent sogar 2.000 Euro oder mehr.* Welche Posten dabei am häufigsten ins Gewicht fallen:

- 78 Prozent nennen die Anschaffung selbst, also Kaufpreis oder Schutzgebühr

- 72 Prozent die Erstausstattung wie Bett, Leine oder Näpfe

- 65 Prozent die ersten tierärztlichen Untersuchungen

- 53 Prozent die Versicherung - ein Posten, der bei der reinen Anschaffungsplanung häufig übersehen wird

- 30 Prozent die Kastration oder Sterilisation

- 30 Prozent Transport oder Abholung des Hundes

Nur 4 Prozent geben an, dass kaum oder keine größeren Einmalkosten angefallen sind. Für die überwiegende Mehrheit ist der Start also mit spürbaren Investitionen verbunden.

Der monatliche Grundbedarf: Wo das Geld tatsächlich hingeht

Bei der Frage nach den geschätzten monatlichen Gesamtkosten verteilen sich die Antworten breit: 36 Prozent geben 50 bis unter 100 Euro an, 26 Prozent 100 bis unter 150 Euro, 18 Prozent 150 bis unter 200 Euro. Innerhalb dieses Budgets sind es vor allem drei Bereiche, die den Alltag prägen:

- Futter und Leckerlis: Am häufigsten genannt wird ein Betrag von 40 bis unter 60 Euro pro Monat (30 Prozent)

- Versicherung und Hundesteuer: Die meisten Befragten (29 Prozent) zahlen hierfür 10 bis unter 20 Euro monatlich

- Betreuung: Für 73 Prozent der Befragten fällt hierfür monatlich nichts an

Bei Hundeschulen, Training oder Verhaltenskursen geben zudem 72 Prozent an, dafür gar nichts auszugeben. Ein Hinweis darauf, dass strukturiertes Training offenbar nicht bei allen Hundehalter:innen zum Standardprogramm gehört.

Die Rasse macht einen Unterschied: Von Chihuahua bis Französische Bulldogge

Wie viel ein Hund kostet, hängt der Umfrage zufolge auch von der Rasse ab. Unter den sechs am häufigsten genannten Rassen zeigen sich bei den geschätzten monatlichen Gesamtkosten spürbare Unterschiede:

- Chihuahua: rund 122 Euro pro Monat

- Mischling: rund 126 Euro pro Monat

- Deutscher Schäferhund: rund 155 Euro pro Monat

- Labrador Retriever: rund 163 Euro pro Monat

- Golden Retriever: rund 167 Euro pro Monat

- Französische Bulldogge: rund 176 Euro pro Monat

Halter:innen von Französischen Bulldoggen kalkulieren damit im Schnitt rund 54 Euro mehr pro Monat ein als Chihuahua-Halter:innen - ein Unterschied von rund 44 Prozent.** Auch bei den jährlichen Tierarztkosten und den teuersten ungeplanten Ausgaben liegt die Französische Bulldogge unter den betrachteten Rassen am höchsten: Im Schnitt geben ihre Halter:innen rund 582 Euro pro Jahr für den Tierarzt an, bei der teuersten ungeplanten Ausgabe der vergangenen zwölf Monate sind es im Schnitt rund 636 Euro.

Zum Vergleich: Bei Chihuahua-Halter:innen liegen diese Werte bei rund 352 Euro beziehungsweise 395 Euro.

Gesundheit bleibt die größte Unsicherheit

Neben den planbaren Ausgaben bleibt der Hund auch ein Kostenfaktor mit Überraschungspotenzial. Bei 26 Prozent der Befragten lag die teuerste ungeplante Ausgabe der vergangenen zwölf Monate bei 1.000 Euro oder mehr. Die häufigste Ursache dafür ist Krankheit (41 Prozent), gefolgt von Medikamenten (31 Prozent) und Unfällen (24 Prozent).

Anders sieht es bei Futter und Tierarztkosten aus. Diese Bereiche gelten für die meisten als nicht verhandelbar: 83,8 Prozent würden beim Futter nicht sparen und 76,4 Prozent nicht bei Tierarztkosten.

Über die Umfrage

Grundlage der Auswertung ist die im August 2026 von Rover bei dem Anbieter Pollfish in Auftrag gegebene repräsentative Umfrage unter 1.000 Haustierhalter:innen in Deutschland zum Thema Kosten der Hundehaltung, darunter laufende, einmalige und ungeplante Ausgaben, Sparverhalten sowie Unterschiede zwischen einzelnen Hunderassen.

*Wo Anteilswerte auf Basis von Antwortbändern (z. B. "500 bis unter 1.000 Euro") zusammengefasst wurden, handelt es sich um redaktionelle Summenbildungen aus mehreren Antwortkategorien, nicht um direkt erhobene Einzelwerte.

**Die genannten Rassenwerte sind rechnerische Näherungswerte auf Basis der Antwortband-Mitten und beziehen sich ausschließlich auf die sechs in der Umfrage am häufigsten genannten Rassen (jeweils mindestens 50 Nennungen).

Pressekontakt:

Original-Content von: Rover, übermittelt durch news aktuell